Business Law Case: BTT And Chou

Register to read the introduction…This fact would weigh in Choi’s favor. Unfortunately, even though the parties had an oral agreement, no written agreement was ever drafted within the timeframe stipulated on the negotiation agreement. The parties did have seem to have an objective intent to contract, but unfortunately, when new management came in, they were not interested in distributing Strat, and since there was no written contract, I believe they were within their rights to turn Chou…show more content…Obviously, the negotiations between BTT and Chou are for more than $500.00, so the statute of frauds would apply here. For common law contracts, in general, the statute of frauds applies to contracts that cannot be performed in less than one year. Therefore, the statute would apply to this contract. The one element that is uniformly required is a signature of the party against whom enforcement of the contract is sought. There were no signatures to finalize the contract between BTT and Chou. Some courts have ruled that e-mails constitute signed writings within the meaning of statute of frauds since the name at the end of the e-mail signifies intent to authenticate its content. In this scenario, it is somewhat hard to come to this conclusion because it did not say if Chao responded to the e-mail containing the outline of the contract, which would have passed for his signature according to some…show more content…A mistake is defined in contract law as a belief that is not in accord with the facts. I do not believe that the doctrine of mistake would have any bearing in this scenario.
BTT’s best defense would be that Chou never signed any agreement in writing or via e-mail. They could say that Chou never agreed to this contract because there was no signature as according to the statute of frauds. Chou could argue that he did not believe there was an agreement since several months had passed since he heard from BTT.
Assuming, argue do, that this e-mail does not constitute an agreement, what consideration supports this agreement?
I think the fact that BTT gave Chou $25,000 for exclusive negotiating rights shows that BTT had the intent of signing a contract with Chou. The two parties also reached an initial oral agreement although oral agreements are hard to prove in court. BTT also sent Chou a fax asking him to send a draft for a distribution agreement contract.
At the end of the scenario, BTT states that it is not interested in distributing Chou’s new strategy game, Strat. Assuming BTT and Chou have a contract, and BTT has breached the contract by not distributing the game, discuss what remedies might, or might not

Related Documents

Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker
Jennifer Ferrante
LAW/421 – Contemporary Business Law
Date August 18, 2013
Instructor Name Jane Schneider
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker
In week four’s theory practice, we reviewed the case scenario of Big Time Toymaker vs Chou in regards to determining the validity of a contract. As we’ve reviewed, an agreement or mutual assent is of course essential to a valid contract but the law imputes to a person an intention corresponding to the reasonable meaning…

Big Time Toymaker Case Scenario
LAW/421
1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?
I do not think the two parties involved ever had a contract. In the scenario, the parties reached an agreement only three days before the end of a 90-day deadline set in the original negotiation contract. In the original negotiation contract, it states that there would be no distribution contract unless it was in writing. When the BTT manager sent the e-mail to Chou, he mentioned the terms…